Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Risen Case Leads Organizations to Push for a Shield Law that Wouldn’t Protect Risen

Risen Case Leads Organizations to Push for a Shield Law that Wouldn’t Protect Risen

June 16, 2014

Carey Shenkman, First Amendment Attorney

Risen Case Leads Organizations to Push for a Shield Law that Wouldn’t Protect Risen

After a recent setback where the Supreme Court refused to intervene to prevent the DOJ from forcing New York Times
reporter James Risen from testifying against a source, several First
Amendment groups are calling for Congress to rush to pass a law to make
sure he and future reporters aren't forced to testify.

This is a bad idea which will certainly backfire—the reason being
that the obvious contender for a shield law, which passed the Senate
Judiciary Committee in September, would do James Risen and other
journalists no good. Since last summer Congress has been considering S.
987, the Free Flow of Information Act (“FFIA”), which is designed to
protect reporters from having to reveal the identities of their
confidential sources in court. But even Risen himself disapproves of
this measure, observing that its broad national security exceptions
would not have helped in his case. He even asked, “should the
journalistic industry support something that wouldn't have any real
effect?”

Ironically this fact is not stopping professional journalist
lobbying groups from using his case as the poster for passing the FFIA.

The need for a federal reporter privilege is plain. Last year the Justice Department subpoenaed phone call records from the Associated Press.
Risen’s failed Supreme Court appeal raised the stakes, threatening what
many call a “showdown” between the journalist and Attorney General Eric
Holder.

This explains the message many journalism groups are sending to
Congress: hurry. For instance, the National Press Club urged lawmakers
to “quickly pass legislation,” Society of Professional journalists
president David Cuillier said Congress should “move quickly,” and the
Newspaper Association of America “strongly urges” the passage of the
FFIA.

But the FFIA is the wrong choice, for three reasons. First, it
contains broad exceptions for national security. A prosecutor may
overcome the shield by showing that the information sought would
“materially assist” the government in “preventing” or “mitigating” an
“act of terrorism”—a definition the Department of Justice can and will
argue covers nearly anything. This is what knocks out Risen, who
published a story about a botched CIA plan to foil Iran’s nuclear
program.

But the problems don’t stop there. The measure, secondly,
unnecessarily confines journalism to a privileged class, straining to
define a “covered journalist” as someone who meets complicated
thresholds of salary, employment, and institutional affiliations. A
safety clause asks judges to decide if the journalist is engaged in
“legitimate newsgathering”—a problematic question for any judge to
decide. This knocks out significant independent and nontraditional
media.

Third, the law formally excludes organizations such as WikiLeaks and the Intercept—Glenn
Greenwald’s new vehicle for publishing Edward Snowden’s
releases—because both primarily publish unauthorized leaks. Their
reporting includes some of the most significant national security
coverage of our time. Excluding their sources from this law’s protection
delegitimizes the incredibly important public contributions of
whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning—who received a sentence of 35 years
in prison for providing documents to WikiLeaks—as well as Edward
Snowden.

Late May, the House of Representatives passed a different, better
shield law. Lawmakers approved an amendment to an appropriations bill
barring the Justice Department from compelling reporters to testify
about confidential sources. It is unclear if the proposal will stay
afloat in the Senate, but at least the amendment contains no loopholes,
unlike the Senate’s FFIA.

Luckily, the FFIA may not reach the Senate floor before Congress’
August recess. We need a shield law, but not this one. As organizations
emphasize how Risen’s case illustrates the need for a shield law, they
should consider whether what they are pushing will actually do him any
good.

Carey Shenkman is a First Amendment and human rights lawyer
working for Michael Ratner, President Emeritus of the Center for
Constitutional Rights. He can be reached on Twitter @CareyShenkman.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.